[talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes

Brendan Barnes brenbarnes at gmail.com
Sat Oct 24 03:49:50 UTC 2020

Thanks all for the discussion. I can see there will be further separate
discussion around the OSM mapping of landowner-unsanctioned tracks/paths.

Back to my original post which I was seeking advice on, I was requesting
clarity of mapping an official hiking route, which a small section of it
happens to not follow a defined track/path and a compass bearing is
required. The hiking route is *official*: it has NSW NPWS signage which I
have personally surveyed at the start of the segment denoting the "off
track" route, the Australian Alps National Parks Cooperative Management
Program publishes a map also detailing it, and all popular hiking guides
have it listed, too. This small off track section forms part of the
official route.

I've taken Andrew's advice and added fuzzy=500 to the way.

On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 14:14, Brendan Barnes <brenbarnes at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey Greg,
> I agree we shouldn't tag for the renderer. Have you looked at lifecycle
> tags such as was:highway=path? A lifecycle prefix like this does a good
> job with Carto, OsmAnd, and other renderers and not using those former
> (formal or informal) paths for browsing or routing by end users. However
> they can show up in OSM editors for mappers to see the history and note.
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 12:17, Greg Lauer <gregory.lauer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Within this group we are 'experienced' mappers and in most cases familiar
>> with the various OSM mapping tools, and may even use these to plan a trip.
>> Where is the general public use apps (such as MapsMe, Guru ect) that are
>> really dependent on what the apps render displays. I have not seen any apps
>> that, for example, display any attribute (or graphic) to show a track is
>> closed.
>> So the tagging of trails is not visible to most users, and we have the
>> issue of maintaining the tags as they are usually fluid (open, closed etc),
>> The real world example for me is riding in the local forest in SE QLD and
>> seeing other riders blindly following MapsMe on tracks that are closed (and
>> tagged as such but not visible on the map).
>> I am not suggesting a 'tagging to render' regime but just tagging a trail
>> as closed is not having the effect we think it does. Short of adding an
>> attribution to the trail name I am not sure how we resolve? Example xyz
>> trail [Closed]
>> It would be great to see our state land management agencies follow the
>> lead of DoC in NZ (https://www.doc.govt.nz/our-work/maps-and-data/) or
>> USGS (https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70192717) and make
>> the relevant data open (and current!), and encourage crowd sourcing.
>> Greg
>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 07:24, <forster at ozonline.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Hi Andrew
>>>> Trail closed signage will be rapidly destroyed, often in a few days.
>>>> Placing trail closed signage at a trail start makes the start of
>>>> illegal trails more visible and attracts traffic.
>>> It's a catch-22 then, without the signage then it's per the law not
>>> illegal to use. To be honest I don't think placing a trail closed sign at
>>> the trail start makes it more visible and attracts traffic, many people
>>> will see that sign and choose not walk there, compared to no signage when
>>> they'd be like oh there's a track here, nothing to say it can't be used.
>>>> A park will often
>>>> have signage at all entrances which says "keep to formed trails" which
>>>> can be ambiguous especially to a mapper who believes in mapping
>>>> everything.
>>> "keep to formed trails" but those illegally constructed tracks look like
>>> formed trails to many users of the park, so keeping to the formed trails to
>>> me still allows me to walk on the illegally constructed tracks.
>>>> Parks will refer you to a copyright map of legal trails and have
>>>> difficulty understanding why you can't use that as evidence.
>>> I don't want to be the enemy here, I'm all for preserving sensitive
>>> landscapes to prevent damage and erosion, where a track has legally been
>>> closed then we should mark it as access=no which data consumers should
>>> treat that as no open to the public.
>>> I can sympathise with the park operator, why should they have to be
>>> constantly monitoring for any signs of a track anywhere in the park and
>>> installing signage everywhere, why can't they say these are the areas we
>>> authorise everywhere else is not authorised, I guess they can install
>>> signage to that effect. I guess that's one use case there of OSM for park
>>> operators, it can help alert you of where tracks are forming that you might
>>> not have intentionally created.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20201024/fe5ab833/attachment.htm>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list